Bibliographic record
Abstract
Back in 1986, the World Health Organization (WHO) produced the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. The intention of the charter was to create a framework that conveyed the notions of capacity building into a structured process for health promotion action in specific settings. This charter subsequently provided the vehicle from which the Health Promoting Hospital (HPH) initiative was launched, culminating in the Budapest Declaration of Health Promoting Hospitals (WHO, 1991). The aim of this paper is to investigate the nature and progress of the European HPH movement. Despite the fact that 'pockets' of concerted and progressive activity and evaluation have emerged from the HPH initiative, the majority of the available literature demonstrates a more limited impact than perhaps the WHO might have anticipated for its efforts over the last 15 years or so. Indications are that many of the member European HPH states have struggled to move beyond the 'project' phases of their planned programmes. This is not to detract from the considerable efforts that have been made to establish HPH networks or the continuing attempts to recruit further members/institutions into the movement. Nevertheless, this account concludes that a more concerted evaluation of European HPH progress is needed to accurately measure its impact and progress. If the situation remains unchanged, perhaps a fundamental review of the strategy is worth considering.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".